IGN mods are now deleting the top comments that criticize the reviewer for saying too much water is a negative.

Honestly, I've always thought that Pokemon games have had too much water...its boring, and the addition of Waterfall and Dive just made it even more of a pain to traverse.

Too much water is a valid complaint, however, I do think the rating system gets weird when talking about remakes. Do you rate a game on how good it is or how good of a remaster it is (or rather, where is the balance)? Rating a remake "badly" because of some fairly artificial complaints about the original game doesn't really sit super well with me, but I can't really figure out where I sit with the matter. I am open for input...

Where did she complain about the abundance of water in and of itself?

You also have to navigate many bodies of water, since much of the late-game involves the HMs Surf and Dive to get from place to place. Diving was really neat back in 2002 when it was new, but I found it incredibly tedious in Alpha and Omega — an obvious example of how superfluous some HMs are.

It’s not a new complaint, but Hoenn is still imbalanced type-wise, heavily favoring water.

  It feels like there are water Pokémon in nearly every battle, and I have an overleveled Pikachu to show for it

The water itself is absolutely gorgeous with the new graphics and details, though

 Everything in Hoenn, water or not, is either delightfully cute or strikingly beautiful

despite the tediousness associated with navigating all that pretty water

 Still, a few of its flaws are even more glaring in 3D, especially the excess water Pokémon and often dull navigation of their habitats

That's all the mentions of water in the actual review (I literally ctrl+f'd "water").

Then there's this little thing on the bottom:

• –Too much water

If you interpret that as her just deducing points, simply because there's a lot of water, then you should try and read the review again, to see what her complaints are again. Like I said in my first post, you (as in "you guys") are taking things out of context.

BTW why should I know what a repel is? I'm not gonna play this game anyway

The score I see is a 7.8 and too much water was not even the major complaint. The reviewer's major gripes were with too many Hidden Moves, balancing issues and "...dull navigation."

So I read the whole review & you're correct. He isn't exactly complaining about too much water but that the game isn't balanced. The water Pokemon are over used. Although, he does criticize the water areas too.

I hate the water areas in Pokemon too. They are super annoying. I haven't played the game myself but deducting a game 22 points because of HM's & water unbalance issues does seem a bit harsh. It sounded like he really enjoyed the game overall. Maybe it's just me but a 7.8 sounds like "This game was decent" to me.

Just wait till they review the next gran turismo! "6/10 too many cars"

You might want to fix that headline.  The review is a 7.8.

But it's really taking things out of context when the topic is called:

IGN gives Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire a 7.8* because of too much water.....

*Fixed.

I agree with you on that

And here is your problem. You don't understand that just because you have no problem with the number of water pokemon you enocuter over the rest of the types, the reviewer shouldn't have a problem with it either. Same with the second bolded part. You don't find it tedious, she did. I find water any water levels in Super Mario tedious, others don't (we had a thread where people also expressed a similar sentiment). There is no objective way to say that they are or are not tedious. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this review.